Tuesday marked the second time that I have ever been meaningfully oppressed (my first such experience was, of course, last year’s Tunnel of Oppression). There were some slight differences in this year’s Tunnel (largely, I think, because of my insightful and probing criticism from last year), resulting in what I will consider an upgrade in the Tunnel’s performance, i.e. instead of being completely ridiculous like last year, this year’s Tunnel was only extremely ridiculous. Despite some tweaking around the edges, there was still plenty of absurdity to go around. So, let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

Last year, the Tunnel sported a Harry Potter theme. This year, the theme was Willy Wonka. I commend the Tunnelers for choosing such a theme, as it’s entirely appropriate to the overall context of the Tunnel. Being nothing more than a fantasy of the liberal imagination, the planning committee was spot-on to select Willy Wonka as this year’s sponsor. My only criticism here is the rather obvious lack of chocolate in the Tunnel. After walking under the banner proclaiming the entrance to Willy Wonka’s factory, I was expecting at least a few chocolate bars somewhere along the course of my journey through the Tunnel. A chocolate fountain would have been most excellent, but I’m entirely willing to settle for a few Wonka Bars. Also missing were the demeaning name tags everyone received last year. I had really hoped to be the “Towel Head” in the group again, but was severely disappointed when I learned this part of the tour had been deleted.

We then played the rather odd, “Take One Step Forward if You’re a White, Privileged, Male. Take One Step Back if You’re Anyone Else” game. Unlike last year, I think I nearly won this time. In my alias as an underprivileged Hispanic (by the name of Juan Franco-Seelingez), I was a close second to the black Jamaican guy. Unfortunately I did not anticipate encountering such stiff competition, but I hope to do better next year.

We next passed by a couple of people reciting kvetches from the Daily Tar Heel. I’ll confess that I didn’t quite understand the point of this presentation. I guess the Kvetching Board is oppressive??? Then a homeless man wandering onto the scene, and the Kvetchers “oppressed” him by refusing to give him money. Now, as a rule, I don’t give money to panhandlers. Aside from the dozens of welfare programs that these people could choose to avail themselves of, I’m of the opinion that local charities are much better at determining the needs of such people than I am. The Tunnel’s presentation of the hobo was also misleading. Many bums don’t simply wander up to you (in their brand-new jackets) and amble off when you refuse to give them money. In my experience, they can be quite mean and vile: getting in your face, swearing at you, spitting at you, etc. Not altogether a pleasant experience. The Tunnel’s hobo is quite fictional without any basis in reality, departing with a simple, “Ok, no problem. Have a nice day.” It just doesn’t happen that way.

Next, we wandered into a room that took up the issues of binge eating and the like. This wasn’t particularly interesting one way or the other. Binge eating’s bad, I get that. But then we also have such things as Michelle Obama’s “Move On” campaign and UNC’s own Lifetime Fitness requirement, which for the obese might constitute its own form of oppression. The demonization of anything but a perfect body is not something that is just found in vain Hollywood actors.

Special needs (actually I’m not even sure if I’m allowed to say that) was up next. This was yet another fantasy world dreamed up by Willy Wonka-inspired Tunnelers. In this room, a teacher proctoring an exam refused to allow extra time for the dyslexic student in the room to finish his exam. I don’t know any teacher (or professor) who’s not willing to make accommodations for people with special needs. It’s really just a non-issue for me. The whole scene was contrived.

Next up was the Museum of Religion. The very name of the room was a tip-off, as it implies that religion is some sort of relic of the past. This was the first area of the Tunnel for which I think I can claim responsibility. Considering the way I sandblasted the Tunnel’s presentation of religious believers last year, I think this really goes to show the extent of my power and influence. Instead of outright making fun of Christians, etc. (but mainly Christians), the Tunnelers attempted to present the diversity of religious belief in the world. However, what they accomplished in creating was simply a set of caricatures. Take the Christian as an example. He was a Bible-thumping, Fundamentalist Christian. This fails to appreciate the great diversity of belief among Christians and instead simplifies it down to what is simply a popular mischaracterization of Christians among non-Christians. This occurs while the Muslim girl makes a point about how everyone who’s not Muslim thinks all Muslim women wear burkas. I’m not sure that she appreciated the irony. But then this also seemed like another non-issue (especially if we’re talking about the United States). Sure, there’s still religious discrimination in the world (particularly in, dare I say, Islamic states), but what do the Tunnelers expect us to do? Fly to Iran and tell the mullahs to back off?

We then moved onto what was one of my favorite rooms from last year, the Homophobia Room! I also saw my mark here, as the homophobes (unlike last year) were not carrying Bibles and did not have terribly overt Southern accents. However, there were such classic lines as, “What about AIDS? Aren’t your parents going to be worried?” Because that’s totally the first thing that comes to mind when I meet a gay person. And then there was the not so-veiled criticism of Christians (although, in fairness they could have been invoking Islam, but somehow I doubt that), “Don’t you know what our religion says about these people? That you’re just going to beat them down, [what???] that you’re just an abomination.” I’ll take ignorance for 100 please, Alex. As luck would have it, I happen to be fairly well-versed in what my “religion” says about “these people” (at least on the Catholic side of things). And it’s not, like the Tunnelers suggest that “Gays are bad people.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I also don’t think the Tunnelers appreciated the irony of (continuing to) present caricatures of religious groups just after telling us we shouldn’t generalize about religious groups.

We then moved through a TSA security line, where the screeners pulled out all of the Middle Eastern-looking people. Now, like I’ve said before, I have no problem with racial profiling (or profiling in general) in police work. It’s how you eliminate obviously innocent people and narrow down the list of bad guys. Considering that there are armies of Middle Eastern terrorists who would love nothing more than to blow you and me to pieces, I really don’t have any problem with giving them a little extra scrutiny at the airport.

On that subject, following our screening, a group of terrorists herded us into a “gas chamber” and gassed us as we listened to a recording of people being gassed to death. I still believe that this presentation is highly inappropriate as it trivializes some of the most horrific mass-killings of the last century. If the Tunnelers had any respect for the dead, they would drop this.

After listening to two girls talk about relationship violence (which as I mentioned last year, conspicuously omitted any mention of female on male relationship violence), we proceeded to the Diversity Room with Comfy Chairs, where we listened to some of the most confused people I have ever met. Actually, the room might also be entitled the Mental Ward, as no one in the room seemed to know who they were.

(Preface: I apologize for inadvertently filming the ceiling for this section. Being sneaky is harder than it looks). First, we had the throughly confused girl who didn’t want to be placed in a racial “bubble”, but was also freaking out about not being able to fit in with the various racial groups with which she didn’t actually want to identify. As if to make her point, she proclaimed, “[The Egyptians] ask for my passport.” Among a whole list of platitudes, there was this classic line (which I think she stole from an Obama speech), “I am everything I want to be. I am everything I say I am.”  Well… no you’re not. She was quite obviously a woman. Even if she had claimed to be a man, she would still have been a woman (even if some people in the Gender Studies department would contest that). But I think the most bothersome part of this monologue was its sheer hypocrisy. Liberals (and especially UNC’s Admissions Office) obsess over racial identity. I couldn’t care less, but they’re the ones who insist that we all fill out the little racial bubbles on our applications and tests and census forms. Identifying as an American is quite enough for me. I’m not the one obsessing over my racial heritage or demanding reparations for crimes committed against my race. When I look at a person, I don’t see a race. I see a unique person with his own set of skills, talents, ideas, and desires. Liberals, on the other hand, only see arbitrary group identities. So, if you want the source of your “oppression” honey, look in the mirror.

A Racial Bubble

I then had to listen to a black woman complain endlessly about how everyone assumes she’s uneducated because she happens to be black. Of course, she didn’t really do much to help her case with her frequent grammatical slips. She seemed to have a particular issue with adverbs. Consider, “I’m not allowed to speak proper [sic],” or “Just because I speak proper [sic], I’m acting white.” Now, I normally try not to be a grammar Nazi, but if you’re going to make a big deal about how you’re educated and you speak like the white people, you might want to proofread your speech a few times. Just a suggestion. Also, her point about how BET is a true representation of “her people” was also really funny. If you remember, in the 2009 Virginia Governor’s race, the co-founder of BET, Sheila Johnson, endorsed the Republican, Bob McDonnell. Considering that the black vote is overwhelmingly Democrat, I guess the point of the Angry Black Woman is borne out here. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what she meant.

Next was Madame Bolivia, who, if I remember correctly, was also present in this room last year. The one point of her’s that was really irritating concerned her “people can’t be illegal” comment.Clearly they can, and clearly they are. If you break the law (even if it’s not immigration law) you operate in a fashion that is outside the bounds of the law, and hence illegally. Also, being an illegal immigrant doesn’t “void” your existence (as she claimed) in the same way that trespassing doesn’t “void” your existence. You’re just simply in a place that you’re not supposed to be. I’ve never heard of an illegal immigrant just ceasing to exist. She also asks us to consider “things we cannot fathom” (a particularly difficult exercise) and imagine all the things that illegal immigrants give up to be here. But what about those who came here legally and all that they gave up? What makes the illegal immigrants so special? The odd thing is, the illegal immigrants are operating out of a place of selfishness, placing themselves above the laws the govern everyone else and putting their wants and desires ahead of those who patiently waited in line. We all learned in kindergarten that cutting the line was a bad thing and unfair to those in the back of the line. Line cutters would be ratted out to the teacher and frowned upon by the other students. The same principle applies to illegal immigration. I don’t understand what’s so complicated about it that a five-year old can understand it, but the Confusedly Whining, College-Educated, Swedish-Bolivian can’t. Also, her comment about treating illegal-immigrants as third-class citizens is totally out of line. If they were “below human” as she claims, they’d be out in the fields working as slaves, and would not have access to our hospitals, schools, and a whole host of welfare programs. Compared to what many of them came from, I’d say they have it pretty good. And I’d appreciate it if the Confusedly Whining, College-Educated, Swedish-Bolivian did not make my country sound like the re-incarnation of the Third Reich.

Do you think they're illegal???

We ended with a visit to the Hall of Flowers and Sunshine, where we wrote our feelings up on the wall. I, of course, promised to be the change I hope to be, but others took the event a little more seriously than I did. We finished up with the Indoctrination/De-compression session and wished Willy Wonka a good-bye before heading out the door.

All in all, it was a rather entertaining experience. While I realize most liberals have nightmares about these sorts of things, the way in which they presented them was quite funny, at least to me and my compadres (no racial slur intended) who live in what we like to call reality. The Tunnelers followed the classic liberal line of building of a straw man (That’s oppressive isn’t it? Maybe I should say, “straw person” or “straw wo/man”), and tearing it down. But given that we’re dealing with people who obviously have the intellectual depth of a teaspoon, what more should we expect? Though, in all honesty, I think they should really consider billing the Tunnel as a comedy show. I can’t even count the number of times I nearly broke down laughing. They could call it, “A Parody on Life: The Tunnel of Oppression.” But I guess there’s always next year.

Anyway, one of the bits from the book that I found most striking is this anecdote from Dr. Collier:

“While I was directing the World Bank’s research department, the most controversial paper we produced was one called ‘Growth is Good for the Poor.’ Some NGO’s hated it, and it was the only time in five years that Jim Wolfensohn, the Bank’s president, phoned me to voice his concern.”

Now why would some of the world’s leading poverty reduction organizations be so uncomfortable about economic growth? Isn’t the problem with poor people the fact that they are poor? Wouldn’t growth go a long way toward alleviating poverty?

Dr. Collier points out that some people are concerned that economic growth doesn’t always trickle down: “The growth of Equatorial Guinea, for example, produced benefits for only a handful of its people.” Thus there is a focus among anti-poverty NGO’s on “sustainable, pro-poor growth.”

As one might expect, however, the case of Equatorial Guinea “is exceptional; growth usually does benefit ordinary people.” In fact, Dr. Collier (who is scrupulously nonpartisan) warns that focus on “sustainable, pro-poor growth” has actually “inadvertently undermined genuinely strategic thinking.”

As an example, he mentions a banking expert who was trying to promote banking reform which evidence strongly suggested would improve economic growth. However, he was hindered by concerns that NGO’s wouldn’t accept it since there was considerably less evidence that the reforms would help the poor.

Is this a case of bleeding hearts gone awry? Perhaps—it certainly seems that the NGO leaders have been at least a little influenced by leftist politics.**

Leftists the world over consistently appeal to people’s envy, the only one of the seven deadly sins that does not give at least temporary pleasure (to borrow a line from George Will), which is why you hear so much whining and complaining about “inequality.”

I would like to posit here that inequality is not really a problem—or, in any case, only a rather minor problem. Consider: if a starving Ugandan doubles his annual income and is now able to feed his family, does it really matter to him if his neighbor has quadrupled his income? The first man may be a bit envious, but certainly things could be worse: his primary problem has been fixed.

As Dr. Collier declares, “We cannot make poverty history unless the countries of the bottom billion start to grow, and they will not grow by turning them into Cuba.” Paging President Obama…

*Disclaimer: Thomas Ginn does not necssarily endorse any of the views presented here. Actually, I’m pretty sure he would disagree with me on some points.

**Not to let right-wingers totally off the hook: Dr. Collier notes a tendency among the right to view poor policy as the cause of poor country’s problems. That is a problem, to be sure, but the rest of the book details other significant non-governmental problems that keep the bottom billion down.

I am not sure if this was planned or not, but the entire first floor of Cobb is currently covered in Harry Potter decorations, which really did nothing to dispel my haunted house theory. Nevertheless, our tour of the Tunnel began as we walked into the room with the signage of Platform 9¾ hanging over the door. The first exercise (following the Roller-coaster-like introduction, where we were informed that we could of course step out of the Tunnel if the experience was too much for us) was one of those if-this-applies-to-you-step-forward (or backward) gigs. However, the only purpose of these questions seemed to be to segregate the white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative males from the rest of the group. My hypothesis was proved correct, when at the end of the exercise, my companion and I were standing in the front of the room and the six or so black members of our group (among whom was one-time presidential candidate, Joe Levin-Manning) were at the very back of the room. Maybe that makes me an oppressor? I prefer to blame this result on my altitudinal disability and the fact that this disability requires me to take smaller steps which would allow those in the room with longer legs to more easily move away from me.

Following this, we were each given a nametag with various derogatory names on them. I was a “Towel-Head.” We then proceeded down a flight of stairs (at which point the “Gimp” in the group was forced to take an elevator), passed a group of homeless people, and viewed a display that appeared to bemoan the existence of wheelchair ramps in the world. I cannot even pretend to understand what makes wheelchair ramps so oppressive, but the fun does not end there. We then viewed a skit of sorts that discussed the problems that revolve around self-image, weight, etc. The next part of the tour was absolutely classic.

Walking down the hall, we were confronted by two police officers, who lined us up against a wall and began checking IDs. However, they did not of course check everyone’s ID, just mine (the “Towel-Head”) and the “Wet-backer,” who upon being unable to produce ID, they promptly arrested. I will also note that the two officers had clearly defined and greatly exaggerated Southern accents. This was one of my main critiques of the Tunnel. Rather than provoking a substantive discussion about policy issues, the Tunnelers preferred to set up caricatures, straw men, and gross generalizations. In this case, they characterized those officers who legally enforce immigration laws as nothing but stupid, Southern hicks who hate Mexicans. There is, of course, plenty of room to debate immigration laws, but characterizing the current situation in this way was quite childish.

They also seemed to deride profiling techniques that law enforcement officials often use to catch criminals. But is that not what police work is supposed to be? In order to catch the bad guys, you have to have some idea of what they look like. If you know that your crook has a huge scar down the side of his face, wouldn’t it make sense to more closely examine those people with scars down their faces? There is no point in examining the people without scars, as you know your crook has a scar. The same principle applies to race.

We next moved on to the GLBTWXYZ room, where two people impersonating Evangelical Christians accosted the “Homo” in the group and began calling down fire and brimstone. There were several problems with this display. The first was that the Tunnel people were again setting up a straw man. Not everyone who disagrees with the idea that homosexual couples can enter into a traditional marriage is by definition homophobic. There is room for substantive disagreement on the issue without having to descend to petty name-calling. The two performers also did their best to use rather exaggerated Southern accents while they rattled off Bible quotes. The fact that this accent kept popping up throughout the tour indicates that the organizers of this little event have a rather low opinion of people who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line. This may be in part because the South tends to be the more conservative part of the country, but that is just a guess. If I was from the South, I would be insulted. However, in light of what I learned last night, I am doing my best to feel insulted on behalf of Southerners.

We next moved onto a display about world religions, which had nice little diagrams about what various people around the world believe. A few minutes later, we were rounded up by some guerrilla fighters and gassed. While we were being gassed, we had the opportunity to learn about genocide around the world and listen to a clip of people being gassed. This part of the tour seemed to do a good job of trivializing some of the larger mass killings of the 20^th century. The two comical and absurd guerrilla fighters coupled with the tape of the gassing and the pictures of children killed by genocide taped along the inside of a play-gas chamber seemed a rather inappropriate and irreverent way of discussing this rather somber topic.

We then moved on to a performance on relationship violence. There was a noticeable hole in this performance though. Considering that the Tunnel seemed oriented to exposing students to oppression in all its forms, you would think that in this part of the tour, they would have included both a male and a female who could talk to the issues of relationship violence. Alas, they did not. Instead, I was treated to two women pouring out the stories of their oppression. While they claimed that the stories were true, the way in which they were told seemed to suggest that they were at least partially manufactured and that they were about as true as any of the stories told by the Democrats any time they talk about health care.

The final room was very strange. We talked about race relations. There were three speakers. The first one was an Asian woman who complained about getting a B on a test and was afraid of the abuse her parents would rain down upon her. This one was hard to take seriously, as it replicated the stereotype (which I thought we were supposed to move beyond) that all Asians are rocket scientists and their parents slave drivers when it comes to school. We then heard from a black man from New Orleans who complained about the lack of resources for black people after Hurricane Katrina and in relation to schooling. Of course, the common denominator in both those problems is the government, which he did not seem to appreciate. Somehow it is my fault as a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male that he suffered during the hurricane and that he went to a poor school. I would suggest that he instead look towards the government of Louisiana as the originator of his problems.

We then heard from a Latina woman who complained about how hard it is to get a visa and how people like her do the “dirty work that Americans don’t want to do.” A discussion about immigration policy is a topic for another post; however, her last comment nearly set me off. To be blunt, it is simply not true. As a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male, I have done such “dirty” work, even alongside migrant farmworkers. I have worked in a field and done all sorts of unpleasant work. And I know that I am not the only white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male to do it. It is not fun, but it pays, which is why people do it, especially in this economy.

Finally, we were treated to the woes of a woman who is half-white and half-black. She seemed intensely fixated on the color of her skin and whether she should consider herself a black person or a white person. She concluded by saying that a new race is emerging “mixed, bi-racial, or multi-racial.” I will suggest that it does not matter what she decides to call herself. As Dr. Martin Luther King suggests, what matters is the content of your character, who you are as a person, and what you decide to do with your life. The color of your skin or your race should be insignificant details.

The Tour ended when we entered the Hallway of Happiness and were debriefed in a kumbaya session afterwards (what is a liberal feel-good event without one?). Thus ended the haunted house and the Tunnel. I suppose that most people come away feeling like they have really accomplished something and have successfully been made aware of oppression in the world. I came away convinced that the people running RHA are insane and wondering how anyone could want to spend three days of their life running such a thing. As far as awareness goes, I am now more aware of just how ridiculous these sorts of events are and to what depths some people will descend when they attempt to debate politics. It was a fun experience though. It was a neat twist on people watching, and provided me with valuable insight into the liberal mind. One thing I might suggest they add is a section on political and intellectual oppression. I wonder how they might have reacted had I worn my official Carolina Review t-shirt to this event. My instinct tells me it would have been rather ironic to observe.

But the protesters are absolutely right. I’m completely offended at the non-inclusive language that the DTH uses on a regular basis.

For example, they continue to use the terms “man” and “woman” or “male” and “female” in their writing. By pushing the false male-female dichotomy on our society, they are being offensive to intersexuals and making them feel like a small minority who shouldn’t be able to dictate the English language to the rest of society. The use of terms that distinguish between men and women only serve to highlight the differences between us and strengthen the sexual inequality inherent in our society.

For example, the differentiation in articles between men’s and women’s basketball teams inadvertently highlights the inequality between the programs in terms of attendance, stadium size and entertainment value. From now on, the DTH should refrain from identifying which basketball program it is talking about in an article. Also, player’s names should be made gender-neutral so we can’t cheat and tell which team they are talking about that way. From now on, all members of UNC basketball teams will take the first name of “Taylor” or “Madison.”

I also want to end the use of the term “March Madness.” While it is a widely accepted term in American slang, “Madness” is also an insulting archaic term for those who suffer from mental illness. The continued use of this term shows appalling insensitivity.

All movie and theater reviews will cease to use the term “actress,” as women in the dramatic arts fields will feel more equal and special if described by the masculine term “actor.” Actually, we’ll just get rid of the term “women” and call them “men” instead.

Actually scratch that, it’s sexist. We have to call them “persons.” Because nothing makes a person feel loved and appreciated more than calling them by a term that could apply to any Homo sapiens that has ever been conceived. Nothing is more inclusive than using a term that includes all of humanity. Actually, this might be offensive to other intelligent sentient life in the universe, so we’ll just use the term “sentients” instead. It’s very endearing.

The sentients at the DTH might want to further examine their sports page, specifically their reporting on mascots. For example, names like “Fighting Illini” that honor the memory of Native American tribes that our states were named after and who were all killed by other Native American tribes centuries ago are offensive to the descendants of these people, even though they don’t have any. The DTH should refrain from publishing such offensive and insulting mascots.

But it’s not just Native American mascots. As an American of Irish descent, the name “Notre Dame Fighting Irish” is highly offensive to me. We did not travel over here through Ellis Island just to be mocked by a university with a dancing leprechaun mascot. What’s more, as a descendant of protestant Irish, the use of the nickname “Fighting Irish” as well as associated green imagery by a Catholic university is highly offensive to me as it shows a distinct pro-IRA sympathy. The sentients at Notre Dame may not realize this, but their noninclusive language is creating a climate supportive of terrorism on another continent.

I would also be offended by the Syracuse Orangemen because I don’t want my heritage used for amusement purposes even though the origin of the Orangemen nickname has nothing to do with Irish, Dutch or Protestants, but they changed their name to the Syracuse Orange so they get a pass. Although the color purple might feel excluded and offended.

You may think this is going too far, but I don’t believe in being contained by the box society tries to put me in. In fact, using any sort of definition in any language automatically creates a boundary. By defining what something is, we are also defining what it is not. For example, when I saw “man” I am defining it as “not a woman.” When I say “plate,” I am defining it as “not a bowl.” By defining things, we exclude other things.

This is intolerant and not inclusive. To remedy this, I recommend the abolition of language. It is a tool of our patriarchal society which is used to oppress those who don’t fit inside its definitions. The solution is to stop defining things. That way, we don’t have to draw boundaries that might exclude some things. I realize this will make complex communication impossible. However, wolves, dolphins and chimpanzees manage to get along socially without language, so I don’t see why it should be a problem for human beings to do the same thing. After all, a lack of gendered language has allowed these species to form societies where everyone is equal and there are no dominating patriarchal hierarchies.

Now my fellow sentients, if you’ll all excuse me, I’ve got to stop using language now in the name of inclusiveness.

Grrrrrrrrowwwwllll….Arrgh…woof…woof…woof…

As Schaeffer himself describes it, he grew up “evangelical royalty” in the world of his father’s work. However, as he grew older he became more distant from the evangelical movement and later joined the Greek Orthodox church. While Schaeffer is still a Bible-believing Christian, his views on many issues have changed.

Although Schaeffer personally believes that homosexuality is immoral, he argues that his personal views should not be imposed in the public sphere. Because America is a pluralistic democracy where people hold many different religious views, “no one can claim they own America.” Hence, law should not be based on one group’s beliefs, but on what is fair for society. Schaeffer argues that gay marriage should be allowed in the name of fairness for homosexual couples. The law, he says, should not discriminate. However, Schaeffer is also a strong proponent of religious liberty. Religious groups should not be forced to recognize relationships which go against their teachings, just as his own Greek Orthodox church is not required to give Communion to a non-member.

Schaeffer also takes evangelicals to task for their unfair and often hypocritical treatment of homosexuals. According to Schaeffer, evangelicals have singled homosexuality out as a sin worse than other sexual sins such as adultery and divorce. He says this was easy to do because homosexuals are a very small minority, instead of, for example, the 50% of Christian marriages that end in divorce. This, Schaeffer says, is costing evangelicals much of their credibility as a moral voice.

The rest of the panelists presented a variety of views on the topic.

Terri Phoenix, who married her lesbian partner in Massachusetts, argued that opposition to homosexual marriage was based purely on religious grounds and that the Constitution prevents discrimination. She went so far as to argue that all relationships between consenting individuals, including polygamous ones, should be recognized so long as they are consensual, however she agreed that religious groups should not be forced to recognize these relationships. Dr. Cohen argued for gay marriage based on equality. However he also argued that modern social services have eliminated much of the need for marriage as a bedrock of society, saying “do we want a society that relies on pairs of people to care for each other?”, but added that he was unsure if he supported legal polygamy. Dr. Roedder argued that better maternity and paternity leave as well as pre-marriage counseling are better ways to protect marriage than not allowing gay marriage.  Tami Fitzgerald provided a counter-weight to their arguments, strongly opposing gay marriage and arguing against it on both moral and practical grounds. She stated that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of the family system which has served humanity well for millenia. Therefore, it makes little sense to change a working formula. She countered arguments about discrimination by saying that “every law is about discrimination: and that we have some protected classes such as age, sex and race, but “who you choose to have sex with is not a basis for special rights.”

I had a chance to speak with Frank Schaeffer following the discussion and got to ask him a few questions. First I asked, what about Christians such as William Wilberforce and Harriet Beecher Stowe who were driven by their religious views to take part in politics and became forces for good in the world? He replied by saying that they lived in a different day and age, when a higher percentage of the population of their respective countries were Bible-believing Christians, and therefore they were able to be effective through politics whereas such tactics will not work today and are also unfair to the large percentage of American society which does not follow Christianity. I also asked him about how we determine law, since all laws are based on morality. He agreed that all laws are based on morality, but said that the moral code that governs state conduct is different from the morality that governs everyday life. What Christians need, he says, is a shift in method from engagement in politics to engaging people. Rather than forcing change from the top, we should work at changing people’s opinions.

My own take on this debate is somewhat nuanced. I agree with most of what Frank Schaeffer says about evangelical Christianity being too fixated on and hypocritical about homosexuality. And I agree that this has hurt evangelicals. And I definitely agree that Christians should engage the people instead of trying to enforce change from the top. However, I don’t agree with his argument that gay marriage should be legalized because not allowing it is unfair.

The truth about life is that everything is about interest and incentives. Democratic government has an interest in being fair to its citizens, because citizens control the government.

The reason I don’t agree with allowing gay marriage is because the current marriage policies of most US states are not unfairly discriminatory. Unfair discrimination occurs when a group is denied something for no reason other than their identity. No one in the United States is discriminated against when getting a marriage license. Any person, regardless of sexual orientation, can marry any other person so long as that other person is of the opposite sex. Now, some people might not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that is not the law’s problem. Some people might complain that this discriminates against them by keeping them from marrying the person they love, but a lot of heterosexuals don’t get to marry the person they love either. The idea that having heterosexual-only marriage is unfairly discriminatory is based on the idea that the love between a homosexual couple creates discrimination in the law, but laws are based on logic, not emotions.

In short, it is not in the state’s interest to upend its current, fair, policy and base new legislation off of emotional attachment. Since the current policies are not discriminatory, there is no need to change them.

With that said, most segments of the church have tragically failed to minister to the homosexual community. We have pursued opposition to gay marriage for the wrong reasons, and have linked the issue to closely to the Christian message in a tragic way. This has resulted in the gay marriage debate becoming a microcosm for battle over a whole host of cultural issues, which leads to two sides which are spectacularly unable to consider other views. Hopefully, more panels like tonight’s excellent discussion will go a long way towards changing this.

In America, we think that people with light skin are white and people with dark skin are black. Although we have sizeable numbers of Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Native Americans and other groups in the United States, discussions on race still tend to focus on white versus black. Seems like a distinct line, right?

Well, the thing is, after four hundred years of intermingling, most Americans of African descent also have some ancestors of European descent in their family tree. So, how black is black? Does one have to have a majority of black ancestors? 50%? In 1892 Louisiana, Homer Plessy was forced to be segregated in the black train cars despite being only one eighth black. This led to the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case, where the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was constitutional. The answer at that time to “how black is black?” was “any amount.”

And that’s a mindset which has carried on to this day. Barack Obama is considered America’s first black president, despite being only half black. But since very few people in America are of full African descent, this doesn’t really matter, because Barack Obama considers himself to be culturally African-American.

Which shows that the question of race is not really about skin color but about culture. African-Americans do have a distinct culture. But in our society, African-American culture is often lumped with other cultures such as Afro-Caribbean or various African cultures under the umbrella of skin color.

Just as the question of race is not really about skin color, neither is the question of racism. The history of South Africa can attest that the British colonization of that country involved racism not only against the Zulus and Xhosa but against the light-skinned, European-descended Boers. The Boers had a different culture and language than the British, and where there are differences there is often friction. Extreme racism between ethnic groups in Africa occurs in many places, groups that we Americans tend to lump together under “black Africans.”

This of course means that there are thousands upon thousands of ethnic groups that have the potential for racial animosity. What’s more, measuring racial groups in statistics becomes far more complicated, even impossible.

Nevertheless, the US census still asks people their racial status. In 2010, the US census will continue to ask responders to identify their race. For some reason, the census bureau does not consider “Hispanic” to be a race, so before moving to the race question responders will first have to answer if they are “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino”, and further identify themselves as “Mexican”, “Puerto Rican”, “Cuban” or “other”. The next question then asks the responders their race, and gives a limited selection of fourteen options. Now, this is a great improvement over 1870, which simply gave responders the options of black, white or mulatto. But fourteen still does not adequately describe the world, or America even.

The choices you will have to identify your race are as follows: White, Black/African-American, American Indian/Alaska Native (write in your tribe), Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian/Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander, and the all-encompassing “Other Race (Write in).”

Now, this is really a hodgepodge of options, some of which are defined by skin color and others by culture. Apparently, most groups get to be defined by culture (such as American Indian tribes) while others are defined by skin color, such as “White” and “Black”. And if you define yourself as hispanic, you have to pick another race/ethnicity as well. Other groups such as Arabs are just plumb out of luck, as are South Asians who are not from India, Jews, Melungeons, Cajuns, and many more.

I believe this convoluted situation is a result of our failure to address a key question: Is race defined culturally or genetically? If it is defined culturally, then we can choose our own race. If it is defined genetically, we can’t change it one bit.

I am culturally a white American southerner. But I am genetically of Irish, Scottish and German descent. However, I can in no way be considered culturally Irish, Scottish or German. I don’t speak German, Gaelic or the Irish or Scottish dialects of English. I wasn’t raised in nor have I adopted Irish, Scottish or German culture. Yet according to genetics I am Irish, Scottish and German. And according to the US Census Bureau, I am defined as “White” solely by the level of melanin in my skin.

It’s all a big mess, isn’t it? What it means is that our culture needs to end its obsession with categorizing people into races. We can start by removing questions about race from the 2010 US census. We can continue by not using racial or ethnic status to decide anything substantial, including but not limited to college admissions, hiring, and “firsts” for any racial group. Whenever people start categorizing each other by racial status, silly convolutions are the inevitable result. Any anyone that attempts such behavior is sooner or later going to end up tying themselves in knots.

The front-page feature story reports that the Rogers Road community near Chapel Hill has inadequate sewage, public transportation, and water systems.  The story quoted protesters from the Rogers Road neighborhood who marched down Franklin Street accusing the local government of “environmental racism” for failing to provide adequate infrastructure services.

It’s hard to imagine that the local governments around here are intentionally depriving mostly-black neighborhoods of proper infrastructure services.  It’s far more sensible to conclude that poor infrastructure is a result of budget constraints, bureaucracy that is unresponsive to the citizens’ demands, and the time delays that occur whenever government tries to fix something.

Likewise, it’s far more likely that Obama will be judged on the success or failure of his economic policies and not his race.

But the title of the Daily Tar Heel’s featured opinion column was “Bar raised for the first black U.S. president.”  The columnist (who holds the “Race Columnist” position at the Daily Tar Heel) claimed that because Obama is partially black, he will have to be more successful than his white counterparts have been:

“But at the end of Obama’s term, Americans will remember whether the first black commander in chief fixed a seemingly endless array of problems.  If the first black president created new jobs.  If the first black president made the rest of the world not hate America.  [...]  His success or his failure will be that of a black president.”

The columnist warns that a failed Obama presidency will encourage racism:  “We hold our presidents to the highest of standards. We cast the first stones when questions arise about their political or personal decisions. But I fear that these stones will be thrown at not only Obama but minority politicians in general if he isn’t successful.”

We no longer live in the 1960′s.  Anyone who interacts socially with diverse groups of Americans on a daily basis will realize that racial bigotry is at an all-time low.  Race is not why a large percentage of the country dislikes Obama. . . and if you believe otherwise, you are just out of touch.

People dislike Obama because they understand economics.  They understand that you can’t pump unlimited amounts of money into the economy.  They understand that deficit spending sucks money out of productive uses and gives it to the government, where much of it is lost financing the bureaucracy that manages the money intake, and where even more is wasted on ineffective federal programs.

People dislike Obama because his health care policies are likely to hurt workers.  Because he is a fanatical supporter of abortion.  Because he wants to require mandatory federally-administrated work programs for college students – when they could be taking on productive internships to prepare them to be our country’s future business leaders instead of driving stakes into the ground or undergoing inane federal civil defense education.

People dislike Obama because he said he would remove workers’ secret-ballot rights.  Because his so-called “tax cuts” involve no decreases in the marginal rate for working families (or anyone else).  Because he will make it more difficult for families to defend themselves and their property with lawfully-registered weapons.

Ignorning the real, economics-based sources of contempt for Obama, the columnist elevated race to the prime qualification for office.  “Obama’s presidency is this nation’s trial run at a little color in the White House and could make or break this country’s confidence in mold-breaking presidents, whether they are black, Latino, female, gay or any other group,” the Daily Tar Heel’s columnist writes.

Being gay, Latino, female, male, black or white is not a qualification for the presidency in a free society.  The qualifications for president in a free society include persona, business acumen, economic savvy and negotiation skills.  In a society living under mob rule, aesthetics trump policy and politicians exploit popular ignorance to gain an advantage over their opponents.  These populists use race, gender and other aesthetic differences to incite anger against fellow citizens.

John Edwards, the rich white politician turned adulterer (who cheated on his wife while she was recovering from cancer), aptly incited bigotry against “the rich.”

All of this nonsense about rich and poor and black and white as the prime differences between Americans is disheartening.  We are all Americans.  But some of us understand economics, and some of us don’t.  Only those who understand economics – the businessmen and women and the capitalists – will help the poor in the long run.  Only capitalistic policies have ever increased equality, living standards and income all at the same time.

So when the Daily Tar Heel’s Race Columnist writes,

“And while Obama certainly has enough on his plate to keep him busy over the next four years, I just have one simple request for him:  Please don’t screw up,” she should be referring to his policies, and asking for success on behalf of America and all Americans.  But the columnist asks for success on behalf of particular races and ethnic groups.

If we are going to achieve equality between races, shouldn’t we seek it out?  Shouldn’t we stop dividing people into different classes and start loving each other?

It almost seems that the Daily Tar Heel would like to keep expanding the list of special interest that can petition the government for special treatment.  It seems as if the DTH as a paper is not interested in racial equality; for them, the quest for “equality” will end when some groups are far more equal than others.  For this, I fault the editorial board.

As for the columnist. . . I belive that her heart is in the right place.  But she’s just a little misguided.